92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-22685
Y92
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
DOCKET NO. 92-56 199 ) DATE
)
)
)
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of a fracture of the left radius.
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Jill L. Rygwalski, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
This matter came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter Board) on appeal from a rating decision of the
St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (hereinafter RO).
The veteran had peacetime service. A rating decision dated
in November 1989 granted the veteran's claim for service
connection for residuals of a fracture of the left radius,
post internal fixation and reduction. A 100 percent
evaluation was assigned from June 27, 1989, pursuant to the
provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 (1991), and a noncompensable
evaluation was assigned from August 1, 1989. A rating
decision dated in August 1990 continued the noncompensable
evaluation from August 1, 1989. The veteran filed a notice
of disagreement in June 1990 and a statement of the case was
issued in September 1990. The veteran filed his substantive
appeal in October 1990.
The case was received and docketed at the Board in February
1992. The veteran is unrepresented in his appeal.
REMAND
We note that the veteran is requesting a compensable
evaluation for residuals of a fracture of the left radius on
the basis that it has increased in severity as exemplified
by the fact that surgery was recently recommended. We note
from the record that although the veteran fractured his left
radius in service, it was well healed at separation. In
addition, in April 1989 the veteran sustained another injury
which involved both bones of the left forearm.
We note that the most recent outpatient treatment records
indicate that in June 1990, an X-ray study showed nonunion
of the fractures of the midshaft of the left ulna and
radius. In addition, surgical treatment was recommended.
The veteran, in his notice of disagreement, received in June
1990, indicated that he was scheduled for surgery at the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center in
Gainesville, Florida, within the next few months, and that
he was currently receiving treatment at the VA outpatient
clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.
In light of the following, the Board believes that further
medical development should be completed prior to reaching a
decision on this issue.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following actions:
1. The RO should contact the veteran and
request that he provide the names and
addresses of all health care providers,
other than the VA medical facilities in
Gainesville, Florida, and Jacksonville,
Florida, who have treated him for a left
arm disability since July 1990. Then,
after any necessary authorization is
obtained from the veteran, the RO should
attempt to obtain copies of all treatment
records identfied by the veteran, as well
as all treatment records of the veteran
from the VA medical facilities in
Gainesville, Florida, and Jacksonville,
Florida, from July 1990 to the present.
2. The RO should arrange for a VA
orthopedic examination of the veteran to
determine the extent of his
service-connected left arm disability.
All indicated studies should be
performed, including X-ray studies. It
is also requested that the examiner
review the record, and, to the extent
possible, specify the current left
forearm symptomatology which is related,
wholly or partially, to his injury in
service. The rationale for the opinion
should be explained in detail. The
claims folder should be made available to
the examiner prior to the examination.
3. The RO should readjudicate the claim
for an increased evaluation for residuals
of a fracture of the left radius, in
light of the evidence received pursuant
to the requested development.
If the veteran continues to disagree with the decision of
the RO, and if otherwise appropriate, a supplemental
statement of the case should be issued and the veteran
should be provided an opportunity to respond. Then, the
case should be returned to the Board for further
consideration, if otherwise appropriate. By this REMAND,
the Board intimates no opinion as to the final outcome
warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is
contacted by the RO.
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
*
JOHN J. CASTELLOT, SR., M.D.
ROBERT E. SULLIVAN
*38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (West 1991) permits a Board of
Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of
the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business
without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the
Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three
Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or
inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on
the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section
proceed with the transaction of business, including the
issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a
third Member.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United
States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 57 Fed.
Reg. 4126 (1992) (to be codified as 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b))